Motor racing

On the skids

Formula One loses the plot

IF THE lucrative business of Formula One motor racing (F1) had set out to become a laughing-stock in front of hundreds of millions of TV viewers worldwide, could it have bettered its US Grand Prix at Indianapolis on June 19th? After a warm-up lap, 14 of the 20 cars due to take part pulled out, citing “safety grounds”. The “race” started with only six cars, as angry spectators, who had paid $100 or more for tickets, threw beer cans and water bottles.

After investigating the failure during practice of one of its tyres on the final corner of the circuit, Michelin, one of two tyre suppliers to F1, had announced on the eve of the race that it could not guarantee the safety of its product. The only way that the seven teams with Michelin's tyres could race safely was if they reduced the speed of their cars on the final turn.

Max Mosley, president of the sport's governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), rejected a compromise, agreed to by nine of the ten F1 teams, which would have reduced the speed of all 20 cars on the final turn and produced a proper race. He did so on the grounds that it would have been “grossly unfair” to the three teams supplied by Bridgestone, Michelin's rival. The seven Michelin teams rejected as too risky a compromise suggested by the FIA restricting the final-turn speed of just their cars.

The seven teams had strong incentives to compromise: they attract sponsorship from American firms, and want more; America—where F1 has lately been trying to establish itself—is a crucial market for BMW, Honda, Mercedes and Toyota, big carmakers behind four of the seven teams.

Michelin admits that it “screwed up”. Its tyres failed because it had overreached in its desire to beat Bridgestone. But at least the firm deserves credit for confessing its safety concerns. The anger of most of the F1 teams is directed not at Michelin but at Mr Mosley, for his apparent intransigence. Mr Mosley, who is up for re-election this year, blames Michelin and the teams.

The wider context of the farce on the track at Indianapolis is a power struggle off the track. Of the six car carmakers who own, part-own or back a F1 team, only one (Ferrari, part of Fiat) has committed itself to F1 after the current contracts governing the sport expire at the end of 2007. Instead, three of them are threatening to set up a rival championship from 2008, and will probably be joined in the near future by the other two teams. Above all, they want a greater say—and a lesser role for the FIA—in the sport's future.

If any of these carmakers needed a clinching argument for a championship with a new regulatory structure, then the grand prix at Indianapolis surely provided it. Relations between the FIA and most of the larger teams were already severely strained. Unanimous agreement of the teams was supposedly needed to change regulations before 2008, but Mr Mosley pushed through changes for this season without the support of all the teams, using a safety clause in the sport's governing agreement. These changes included a one-tyre-per-weekend rule. Previously, unlimited tyre changes were allowed. Few in the sport really believe that reducing tyre choice in any way improves safety.

Last week, the FIA unveiled plans to further downgrade the role of technology after 2007. This change, which the FIA says will make F1 more a battle of skill, would reduce the influence of the carmakers. “Arguably, some €1.35 billion ($1.6 billion) is being completely wasted in F1 each year by the six manufacturers,” said the FIA.

Only a year ago, few in the sport believed that an alternative to F1 would ever get started. After Indianapolis there are fewer doubters. If Mr Mosley stands and is re-elected, F1 could well collapse, and a new, rival championship in 2008 will become a racing certainty.